Why they did progress further, just put two miniturbofans in it to see how it flies.:)

Uyraell

01-31-2010, 12:56 PM

Do you seriously think they would want a replica of the father of the B2 to actually be seen in flight????

I don't.

They've strived for decades to make certain the public at large forgot the Go229 ever existed. See the Go229 in flight, and it's direct relationship to the B2 becomes screamingly obvious, which also accounts for why the original relic is still rotting away and unrestored after 6 decades.

(It is worth noting, gentlemen, that there are no control surfaces in existence in the replica as far as I can tell. They are merely delineated,.not actual.)

Regards, Uyraell.

pdf27

01-31-2010, 05:04 PM

There are a few French gliders (sailplanes) from the 1960s that are designed just like that... Nobody stopped them from flying, they just weren't very good so didn't sell well.

Deaf Smith

01-31-2010, 06:22 PM

I would suspect the lack of a stabilizer was the reason. To keep the aircraft going in the same direction needs either a stabilizer (tail fin) or very very good controls in the wings.

It can be done now quite will due to computers (as the B2 and F117 shows) but back then some form of dual ailerons that open like dive breaks and keep the plane on course. It would have taken a very delicate set of hands to do that with the technology back then and still have a maneuverable fighter.

So I bet the 229 was a very difficult plane to nanuver.

Deaf

Carl Schwamberger

01-31-2010, 08:02 PM

Wonder if a radio controled model could be easily built? Anyone in that hobby available to comment?

Uyraell

02-01-2010, 01:49 PM

I would suspect the lack of a stabilizer was the reason. To keep the aircraft going in the same direction needs either a stabilizer (tail fin) or very very good controls in the wings.

It can be done now quite will due to computers (as the B2 and F117 shows) but back then some form of dual ailerons that open like dive breaks and keep the plane on course. It would have taken a very delicate set of hands to do that with the technology back then and still have a manoeuverable fighter.

So I bet the 229 was a very difficult plane to manoeuver.

Deaf

That's the unusual aspect of the Horten aircraft, Deaf.
They were controlled by various forms of spoiler/airbrake-bar in the wing, hence had no need for vertical surfaces. Nor was any form of computer assistance available or needed.
It is precisely that lack of vertical surfaces that distinguishes between the Horten designs and those of Jack Northrop, which is why the B2 is plainly a child of Horten designs, despite claims to the contrary.

As for manoeuverability, everything I've read says their handling was excellent, and trouble-free.
Granted, I have some personal reservations regarding stall-departure angles at high angels of attack, or at high indicated airspeed, but I'm not a qualified pilot, so am only going by the theory I was taught by experienced pilots, as far as the a-o-a-stall-depart-recover topic goes.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

MarthaT

02-02-2010, 04:50 PM

Great picture http://www.quincyforum.com/uploads/images/29.gif

herman2

02-04-2010, 11:59 AM

I wonder how the pilot would feel, if his name was Tim?...
get it?
Tim Horten...lol!~~
(It's a Canadian thing-You Americans would not understand it)

VonWeyer

02-05-2010, 12:18 AM

I wonder how the pilot would feel, if his name was Tim?...
get it?
Tim Horten...lol!~~
(It's a Canadian thing-You Americans would not understand it)

Thats a coffee brand right?:)

JP Vieira

02-05-2010, 01:40 PM

Very interesting project

windrider

02-06-2010, 01:43 PM

I wonder how the pilot would feel, if his name was Tim?...
get it?
Tim Horten...lol!~~
(It's a Canadian thing-You Americans would not understand it)

Yeah, and lousy tasting coffe. kind of like machine coffe but with more dishwater in it...:lol:

But seriously, they only rebuilt this plane to test it for it's radar cross-section using ww2 era radars. They thought that the germans tried to make a stealth plane.

Uyraell

02-06-2010, 09:15 PM

Yeah, and lousy tasting coffe. kind of like machine coffe but with more dishwater in it...:lol:

But seriously, they only rebuilt this plane to test it for it's radar cross-section using ww2 era radars. They thought that the germans tried to make a stealth plane.

The odd part was, the Germans discovered it only gave about 30% of the radar return it was predicted to.
Granted, by todays standards, it would still remain detectable, however: with the equipment available in 1944-45 it would have been somewhat more problematic, and much less radar-visible.

The Nat_Geo link also mentions that the Germans had applied a primitive form of radar-absorbent coating to the original Horten 229/Gotha 229 in storage at the Paul Garber Facility to this day.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

ubc

02-08-2010, 12:57 PM

In that Discovery/History channel show, they reported the Me-262 was set in a mock dogfight with the Horton jet and the Horton was clearly the winner. Also the Radar absorbant material may not have been advanced by todays standards , but it reduced radar detection from 20 minutes to 2 minutes travel time from the Radar site.

Historically the intercept time during the BoB based on 20 minutes radar warning allowed 1/2 intercept time to altitude catching the bombers after they crossed the channel.

Later in the war I gather this figure might have been reduced but clearly the bulk of the 20 minutes was needed to intercept. At 2 minutes radar warning and 20 minutes intercept time to altitude, the Horton jet bomber could penetrate 2-300km inland before the interceptors would arrived.

Uyraell

02-10-2010, 01:20 AM

In that Discovery/History channel show, they reported the Me-262 was set in a mock dogfight with the Horton jet and the Horton was clearly the winner. Also the Radar absorbant material may not have been advanced by todays standards , but it reduced radar detection from 20 minutes to 2 minutes travel time from the Radar site.

Historically the intercept time during the BoB based on 20 minutes radar warning allowed 1/2 intercept time to altitude catching the bombers after they crossed the channel.

Later in the war I gather this figure might have been reduced but clearly the bulk of the 20 minutes was needed to intercept. At 2 minutes radar warning and 20 minutes intercept time to altitude, the Horton jet bomber could penetrate 2-300km inland before the interceptors would arrived.

You are correct, ubc. It was the result of this mock-dogfight that made Goering increase the priorities for resources that the Go 229 program was to receive, in both single seat and two seat versions. However, the condition of the German economy at the time, coupled with Allied bombing of the necessary component factories, meant the sought production was never going to happen.

It would though, be most interesting to see a modern build of the Go 229 using the same materials of the time, with modern engines as was done with the Me.262 a few years ago. If a second modern replica was built using composites, and again powered by modern engines was built, the comparison would be thoroughly enlightening, once the data between the two modern replicas was compared, after a suitable flight programme.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

von_Kasbegi414

03-20-2010, 06:22 AM

one funny pic from my archive..dont know where i've found it, but it doesnt matter.

Thanx to Uyraell that here is someone who put things in right way, if some 'diletants' whose dont know the full history and story of Horten HoIX/Go229 and other perfectly engineered paper projects of Horten's Brothers, tell some crappy lies about the design of Ho IX and about its chars.

I fly often Horten IX /Go229 A1 and A2 in my IL2 1946 v4.09m with Ultrapack Mod v2.0n, a there is it precisely modelled- its flight and maneuvering chars.

The Ho 9 is far better plane as Me262 in dogfight and maneuvers, ..what if the more reliable engines (planned HeS-011) were mounted in Ho 9 in place of the unreliable and short-life Jumo 004....

At all im a great fan of Flying wings like Ho.IX and Ho.18 (XVIII.) A -that would be the best planes in the air if they were produced at least in hundreds.

The picture is silly. I'm not a huge fan of flying wings myself, but almost nothing was taken from it by the Allies or the United States specifically. In fact, on U.S. company (Northrop?) had their own flying wing fighter prior to WWII...

von_Kasbegi414

03-20-2010, 07:02 AM

to Nickdfresh... yes Northrop had some own designs of the flying wing gliders and planes before WWII, but all of them suffered by some illnesses, which the Northrop couldnt solve where were the problems.
In comparison with them the Horten Brothers constructed their flying wings in the same time but their designs were very good controllable, had no problems in flight, and taken with them many flights on the gliders meetings in 30's germany- and there they performed always a nice show.

I will tell it very soft, but the Northrop was not so talented at least as much as the Horten Brothers, they had better, longer and deeper experiences with designing, construction and testing their flying wing gliders and later airplanes.

Before Ho.IX, were many successful and very very good flyable Gliders, 8 types (and some sub-versions of them) were before the Ho9 was drawn + built and tested.

Not many people know that the first protype of Ho 9, version V1- unpowered, taken more than 10 flights which all were succesful and shown the pros of the concept, and so - no changes in control elements and flaps were needed.

Nickdfresh, read some technical facts about Hortens designs, Please read this site before you tell somthing incorrect or wrong: (and dont tell the crappy US 'urban' legends and misunderstanded and dis-interpreted facts cut out from the full context) ...its for all noobs and ground rats who dont know something more about the treu story of Horten projects (im flyer, i know what im saying).

Maybe some of you may feel touched, but it is only the truth like it is, in its whole beauty. Truth can be sometimes very hard, very rough and cruel to be accepted and maybe too heavy to bear for some (psychically weaker) people.

to Nickdfresh... yes Northrop had some own designs of the flying wing gliders and planes before WWII, but all of them suffered by some illnesses, which the Northrop couldnt solve where were the problems.
In comparison with them the Horten Brothers constructed their flying wings in the same time but their designs were very good controllable, had no problems in flight, and taken with them many flights on the gliders meetings in 30's germany- and there they performed always a nice show.

I will tell it very soft, but the Northrop was not so talented at least as much as the Horten Brothers, they had better, longer and deeper experiences with designing, construction and testing their flying wing gliders and later airplanes.

Before Ho.IX, were many successful and very very good flyable Gliders, 8 types (and some sub-versions of them) were before the Ho9 was drawn + built and tested.

Not many people know that the first protype of Ho 9, version V1- unpowered, taken more than 10 flights which all were succesful and shown the pros of the concept, and so - no changes in control elements and flaps were needed.

Nickdfresh, read some technical facts about Hortens designs, Please read this site before you tell somthing incorrect or wrong: (and dont tell the crappy US 'urban' legends and misunderstanded and dis-interpreted facts cut out from the full context) ...its for all noobs and ground rats who dont know something more about the treu story of Horten projects (im flyer, i know what im saying).

Maybe some of you may feel touched, but it is only the truth like it is, in its whole beauty. Truth can be sometimes very hard, very rough and cruel to be accepted and maybe too heavy to bear for some (psychically weaker) people.

The "truth" can also be a bunch of crap people are making up about German "wonder weapons" on the internetz. But:

1.) There was little really known about the Horten design. So no one can conclusively say anything about it, nor can flight controls of the highly computerized B-2 (which I hate BTW, I think it's an over-hyped, massively expensive turkey and white elephant whose mission is obsolete and whose contributions to recent wars can be duplicated by other aircraft such as the B-1 or the B-52 far more cheaply). But the bottom line is the B-2 has no more in common with the Horten (which was a fighter BTW, and not the "Amerika Bomber") design than it does the Northrop X216H.

2.) it was barely tested, and had mixed results with many accidents and probably a higher rate of accident than most other prototype aircraft.

3.) Fanbois run around the internet telling us about super-German wonder weapons that are often exaggerated, or at least based on a tantalizingly small body of evidence.

I recognised the commonalities between the Go229 Horten design and the B2 long before I ever became involved with computers, let alone the internet.

I have always said openly that the B2 had more in common with the Go229 than any prior Northrop designs. One of the major differences being that very many Northrop designs incorporated vertical control surfaces, things which the Horten brothers designed the Go229 without.

I'm no "wunderwaffe" fan boy, BUT: in the case of the B2 and Go229 the derivation is scathingly obvious, just as three decades earlier the derivation of the XF92/F102/F106 was plainly from the Lippisch DM1/P13.